You are viewing tacit

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Some Thoughts on Radical Honesty

dragonpoly
A couple of weeks ago, before I travelled to the UK, I was home watching old episodes of the TV show Bones on Netflix. If you've never seen the show, it's about a beautiful forensic anthropologist with an inability to relate to other people's emotional state that's as tenuous as a BitTorrenter's understanding of intellectual property, a dashing FBI agent who has a startling lack of ability to think outside the box, and the wacky hijinks that ensue in the world of forensic science because each is too cowardly to admit that they fancy the other.

One particular episode I watched centered around a group dedicated to the idea of "radical honesty." As might be expcted from a mainstream television show written for a mass audience by generally competent but not particulalry brilliant writers, the show's main characters spent some time debating the merits of complete honesty in interpersonal relationships, and wacky hijinks ensued. In the end, cultural norms were validated, the easiest answer was reached, the bad guy was arrested, and everyone was happy.

Something left me flat about the episode, and after processing it for a while, I figured out what it was. Any discussion about radical honesty invariably ends up getting framed as a question about whether or not being honest all the time is good, and that is a terrible way to look at the question.




It has been my experience that people dedicated to the Radical Honesty movement tend to be, not to put too fine a point on it, rather horrible people. Now, I'm sure there are absolutely lovely, smart, compassionate folks who are part of the whole Radical Honesty thing...but I have yet to meet any.

The folks I have met to advocate Radical Honesty tend to fetishize blunt, unvarnished, raw communication, at the expense of compassion or of any sort of concern for the emotional response of the people to whom they are speaking. Like the main character in Bones, they tend to display a lack of empathy toward their fellow human beings that, from the outside, borders on active hostility.

And that's unfortunate, because it means that conversations about Radical Honesty almost always end up being framed in terms of "Is honesty good, or do we need little white lies and other small deceptions in order to make civilization go?" The debate gets set in terms of honesty vs. dishonesty, and that's a damn shame.

To me, it seems self-evidently obvious that honesty in one's romantic affairs is not just the best policy, it's the only policy that's likely to lead to healthy, secure relationships. Debating the relative merits of honest relationships is, to me, as pointless as debating whether "round" is a good general shape for a wheel.

I advocate, absolutely and without reservation, for honesty in relationships. That would, at first blush, seem to put me square in the same camp as the Radical Honesty folks...and I still can't abide them.

To understand why, one need only consider the question "Does my butt look big in this?"




It is a fact of the human condition, as sure and immutable as the fact that night follows day: Whenever anyone discusses the idea of honesty in a relationship, at some point the conversation will turn to "Does my butt look big in this?"

Those who advocate for dishonesty will say that the easy, comforting answer, the flattering lie, is best. The Radical Honesty crowd will say that telling the truth gives the other person the opportunity to learn the valuable life skill of Not Taking Things Personally...and besides, you're not responsible for someone else's emotional state anyway.

And they're both wrong.

The question "Does my butt look big in this?" is almost never about the clothing in question or the butt in question. (I won't say it's never about that; the speaker might be getting ready for a job interview or a date or something, and looking for advice on the most flattering outfit to wear. But that's very situational.) Instead, the question is almost always about something else--a passive way to fish for compliments or validation, an expression of body-image insecurity, something like that.

The white lie--"Yes, dear, your butt looks magnificent!" if it doesn't--does little to address the real issue. And the person asking the question is unlikely to believe the answer, anyway.

But the Radical Honesty answer is no better; in fact, it's worse. "Your butt looks big no matter what you wear" also does nothing to address the real issue, but on top of that it's pointlessly, needlessly cruel.

It is possible to be honest without being cruel. That's the part the advocates of Radical Honesty rarely get right. "I like your butt better in the polka-dotted skirt" might be an honest answer. "I love you dearly; there's no reason to worry about your butt, because that's nothing to do with the reasons I love you" is another.

Honesty without compassion is rubbish. The question should not be framed as "Which is better, honesty or dishonesty?" but rather "How can we strive for absolute honesty in a framework of respect, compassion, kindness, and sincerity?" All too often, when the question is framed as Radical Honesty vs. The Little White Lie, the only compassionate answer is The Little White Lie, because the philosophy of Radical Honesty--at least as I've seen it practiced--treats compassion with disdain, or even contempt.




Honesty is the best policy. Being honest is an absolute prerequisite for healthy relationships. But honesty does not excuse indifference to the feelings of others. Poor behavior is poor behavior even when it's wrapped in the cloak of honesty.

The same is true, I think, of many different ideas about relationships.

There are a number of relationship philosophies that I think are absolutely essential to healthy positive romantic relationships. Other than honesty, they include the notion of accepting responsibility for one's emotional state, being willing to accept and work through issues such as personal insecurity, and being willing to accept responsibility for wrongdoing without externalizing blame, among others.

Essential to all of these, though, is compassion and respect for the particular feelings and experiences of other people.

Unfortunately, I have seen examples of situations where people use every one of these principles as a blunt instrument against others. Any one of these can be subject to the Radical Honesty Effect--enshrinement of the principle above the basic rules of decency, to the point where adhering to the principle becomes validation enough that compassion can be discarded.

I've seen the idea that we are all responsible for our own emotional state become distorted by the Radical Honesty Effect in some parts of the poly community, where it seems to be taken as a code phrase for "I can do whatever I want to you, and no matter how it makes you feel, that's your shit to deal with, not mine."

With personal responsibility, as with honesty, there are compassionate ways to interact with others, and there are ways that suck. The notion that we are all ultimately responsible for our emotional states does not, in point of fact, justify one in being an arsehole, any more than honesty does.

Radical Honesty can become an excuse to say whatever's on your mind without regard to the effect your words will have. The idea that we are all responsible for our own emotions can, if not watchdogged, become an excuse to behave however you like without regard for the way it affects other people. Unfortunately, what that means is that debate about either of these things tends to get framed in some unfortunate ways--honesty vs. dishonesty, personal responsibility vs. projecting responsibility for the way you feel onto others--that miss the real heart of the matter.




The heart of the matter, as far as I am concerned, is "What can I do to make my relationships stronger, built on a foundation of integrity and trust, and to help the people around me feel supported, cherished, and loved?" I don't feel that dishonesty, whether in the form of "little while lies" or otherwise, does that; but I also don't think that saying "Man, that dress makes your butt look like two enraged hippopotamuses dueling with light sabers under a circus tent!" does that, either. I don't think that enabling insecurity by accepting responsibility for the emotional experiences of my partner does that; but I also don't think that saying "Tough shit, that's your issue, you deal with it" does that, either.

It is possible to be compassionate without sacrificing any of these ideals, which is something I rarely seen talked about in any conversations about them. In the case of a person struggling with some kind of negative emotional response, it can be as simple as "I see that this is something you are having difficulty with. I want to help support you and give you safety while you come to terms with it. Let me know how I can make you feel cherished and loved. If you need more of my time and attention while you deal with this, I am here for you."

The key here is that any philosophy, even if it is true, does not excuse one for being a douche. This probably should be self-evident, but apparently it isn't.

Comments

( 34 comments — Leave a comment )
much_ado
Mar. 2nd, 2012 08:16 pm (UTC)
Man, I *so* want to go for a [insert-beverage-of-choice] with you some day...
miss_lisa_ma
Mar. 2nd, 2012 08:23 pm (UTC)
THIS.

I want to serenade you in Bugs Bunny operas and scatter rose petals at your feet.
mama_hogswatch
Mar. 2nd, 2012 08:33 pm (UTC)
I think the reality is that people who wish to be assholes will simply look for ways to legitimize their behavior.
polylizzy
Mar. 3rd, 2012 11:36 pm (UTC)
As the recipient of and viewer of other peoples solicitations on dating sites and whatnot, I can assure you that yes, some people just feel the need to be assholes.

some people who are assholes and cheat on their partners try to use Polyamory as their "Its ok because it has a legitimate name" excuse for their behavior.

Some people (and I have seen this more in men than in women) are flat out abusive, but since kink is "beating on people for the fun of it" they use that to justify their asshole behavior as legitimate.

Neither of these cases give a rats ass about anyone else, they only care about what their wants are and how to get away with it. I think the rude variety of the Radical Honestiers are the same way, they are legitimate assholes who think that applying a label to it makes it not asshole behavior.

so I full on and totally agree with your sentiment and will add, "those who are civil, compassionate and caring, don't care if they are seen as such and don't feel the need to or try to justify their actions."

(I hope this made sense, brain is a bit fuddled with some stuff today)
sari
Mar. 4th, 2012 07:46 am (UTC)
"those who are civil, compassionate and caring, don't care if they are seen as such and don't feel the need to or try to justify their actions." --> this is a turn on, whoever possesses this quality.
red_girl_42
Mar. 4th, 2012 12:32 am (UTC)
Word.
apestyle
Mar. 2nd, 2012 08:40 pm (UTC)
No lie, that butt looks awesome.
kindredsgirl
Mar. 2nd, 2012 08:49 pm (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing! Yummy!
polylizzy
Mar. 3rd, 2012 11:39 pm (UTC)
agreed, kinda want to nom it but stating that might be creepy or rude since I don't know its owner.
(Anonymous)
Mar. 2nd, 2012 08:54 pm (UTC)
"basic rules of decency"
Is that of the same class as "common sense"??

Care to define what those rules might be? Might they be different depending on the relationship and individuals involved? Might they be different for society as a whole vs individual interactions??

Just food for thought and pushing back on hand-waving.... :D

terryo
Mar. 2nd, 2012 10:31 pm (UTC)
The above post was from me... I hadn't noticed LJ 'lost' my login...
modestgodess
Mar. 6th, 2012 03:07 am (UTC)
This^ What terryo said...
These are good questions in my opinion because decency is subjective. In order to “be decent” you either have to use your definition of decency as a reference or you have to assume what someone else would interpret as decent.

A few weeks ago I stumbled upon an example of how this kind of assumption backfires. I read the post of a black female friend of mine with a picture of her clothed butt asking if it looked fat in the photo. I noted my reaction to the photo and my idea of a compassionate response: “OFCOURSE it does” and that she need not worry because us smaller girls get love too! But as I read the responses I was surprised to find that her friends (none happened to be people of color) were reassuring her over and over again that her butt was not fat at all. And then I remembered. There are different valuing systems for butts dependant on the culture you come from. The people who responded that it was not fat at all thought that that was the most decent and compassionate response. But in that specific case, it wasn’t. I know it wasn’t because I share the experience with the woman posting as a person of color who possesses a smaller than average butt. And in case it seems I assume too much, she clarified in a later response that she was looking for reassurance that it was large enough not small enough.

I wouldn't say I'm an advocate for Radical Honesty although I do practice it myself at times. But I am cautious about common knowledge definitions about things like decency and compassion because I'd rather learn about what compassion means to someone by engaging their conscious definition rather than assume something based on societal norms. Especially when something like reassurance is at stake and there is so much potential for passive aggressive or unconscious communication.

If that makes me a radical ass, well I hope at least a sexy one. ;p
(Anonymous)
Mar. 2nd, 2012 11:31 pm (UTC)
Curious Muse tries again!
sod. just lost my eloquent and well thought through comment :-)
So, to try and pull it off twice (so to speak): I was raised that the first time I am hurt it is their fault. The next time it is my fault. Doesn't mean they're not an arse, just that I am maybe making bad choices about who I allow in my life. Then again if the hurt was not malicious it is for me to find understanding and forgiveness without allowing it to keep happening. Sometimes hard to tell the difference there.
I am a blunt kind of person. I don't doubt I sometimes cause hurt. I try not to. I don't realise people are over-sensitive to criticism because I welcome honesty about me. If it's someone I respect I find ways to change. If I don't respect them I don't give a toss. not everyone thinks that way. I try to empathise with that but I don't understand it.
As to my bum, I'd like an honest answer, we can spot a platitude a mile off. But what I'd really really like is for a man to pre-empt the question by telling me from time to time 'Damn, but you're sexy'. Then I wouldn't care about big bum or saggy tits or pot tummy or whatever. We all have wobbles, physical and emotional. It's just nice to have those put into a perspective of the whole of us from time to time. Too often we forget that even those closest to us need to hear our thoughts rather than guess at them.
keep_up
Mar. 3rd, 2012 01:05 am (UTC)
There is a significant number of autistic people who would refer to this statement as a dehumanizing stereotype:
"they tend to display a lack of empathy toward their fellow human beings that, from the outside, borders on the autistic."

Check out the following links:
http://www.autismandempathy.com/
http://www.journeyswithautism.com/category/empathy/
ashbet
Mar. 3rd, 2012 02:14 am (UTC)
Very interesting -- thank you for those.

(I have several friends on the autism spectrum who certainly are very sweet and caring and wonderful, and their issues revolve around interpreting emotion/nonverbal cues, not a lack of empathy as a whole.)

Would a fairer/more accurate way for tacit to say this be something more like "borders on popular perceptions of the autistic"?

-- A <3
keep_up
Mar. 3rd, 2012 02:32 pm (UTC)
Your suggested phrasing makes a lot of sense to me :)
And it would fit better with the idea of compassion advocated in the original post, imho.

Edited at 2012-03-03 02:35 pm (UTC)
ashbet
Mar. 3rd, 2012 01:31 am (UTC)
>>> "Your butt looks big no matter what you wear" also does nothing to address the real issue, but on top of that it's pointlessly, needlessly cruel.

OMG, yes, THIS!!!!

I've been trying to live my life according to a personal ethical code which is pretty much identical to what you've laid out above -- be honest, don't lie to spare someone else's feelings at the expense of giving a genuine response, BUT temper that response with love, respect, and compassion. (In other words, I'd be the one saying "Honey, you have an AMAZING ass. I think the red dress shows it off to better advantage than those jeans, but you'll look great to me no matter what." And that way, when I say "Mmm, no, those jeans aren't doing it for me -- maybe try the next pair?" when we're in a fitting room, she'll know that it's a referendum on the item of clothing, not on my desire to take a bite out of her bottom.)

(And, yes -- while I certainly agree with some of the principles of Radical Honesty™ in theory, I have not found its adherents to be particularly kind, compassionate, or loving in their practice of it, with the occasional exception. Therefore, it's not a movement I can espouse even though I'm a believer in *honesty* in relationships -- it seems like it's too often an excuse to be blunt and rude, and to put the consequences of the rude behavior off on the listener for being "too sensitive" because "I'm just being honest!")

-- A <3
margoeve
Mar. 3rd, 2012 05:07 pm (UTC)
Yeah, It's kind of like many philosophies. Great in principle, but it attracts the worst elements. Which is unfortunate, because many of the RH exercises I have found VERY helpful over the years.

Most people who live it well, I notice, don't go spewing that they are practicing Radical Honesty though. Kinda like... Christians. There's no need. They simply live it. Just a thought.
ashbet
Mar. 3rd, 2012 11:02 pm (UTC)
Absolutely -- the people who are living the principles don't need to necessarily be in-your-face about it. I have no argument with most of the precepts of Radical Honesty, but the practitioners tend to leave something to be desired.

Always good to hear that people are getting good things out of the radical-honesty theory!

-- A :)
edwardmartiniii
Mar. 3rd, 2012 08:08 am (UTC)
I automatically suspect everyone who feels the need to modify the word "honesty."

My current hypothesis is that they've strapped the word "honesty" to the ass end of the word they really mean, but are hoping that by wiggling "honesty" at the end of the phrase, it'll somehow seem more legitimate -- and conveniently cast those in disagreement as "dishonest."

To test this hypothesis, I've mentally removed the word "honesty" from all these emotional mutations to see how and if it better describes the situation.

For example, if someone describes themselves as "brutally honest", I observe them to see if they're simply brutal.

Now, I've only been doing it for a decade or so, so things are all still new, but so far, I haven't really encountered a reasonable candidate for a counter-example.

Which is too bad, because that would be interesting, and the results of my experiment currently are awfully dull by dint of being predictable.

That said, one's mileage may vary.
rekre8
Mar. 3rd, 2012 10:00 pm (UTC)
Tries to promote Edward's theory by being kindly honest. ;)
seinneann_ceoil
Mar. 3rd, 2012 08:18 am (UTC)
Thank you for this.

Amongst many communities, I would like to see a bit more dialogue about compassion and what it looks like within a relationship. I've also been thinking about the Buddhist notion of "right relationship" and how that might apply.

(Though I know you're not too keen on the Buddhists!)
margoeve
Mar. 3rd, 2012 05:03 pm (UTC)
Actually, someone who has actually studied Radical Honesty would probably say, "Yes your butt looks big AND I LOVE every inch of it."

Of course a person studying Radical Honesty wouldn't ask such a leading question about their butt when what they are really looking for is validation of their overall looks. They'd probably say something like, "I am feeling insecure right wearing this dress. I am looking for validation of my looks." In other words, they'd be honest with themselves about the real motivation for asking about their butt in the first place.

Still robotic, but not the cruelty that people who don't get it follow. Saying that Radical Honesty is about being a cruel douche is like saying folks who read Ayn Rand and go rabid Objectivist understand her philosophy well (they tend to be douches too I've noticed).

Of course, the founder of Radical Honesty is a nutbar. Which doesn't help matters...
tacit
Mar. 3rd, 2012 06:14 pm (UTC)
Granted, my experience is limited to folks who say "I practice Radical Honesty!"--most of whom tend, I've noticed, to be absolutely horrible people.

I like edwardmartiniii's observation about people who graft the word "honesty" onto the end of something else, as in "radical honesty" or "brutal honesty;" all too often it seems that the first word describes pretty accurately how they relate to others.
mellyjc
Mar. 3rd, 2012 11:53 pm (UTC)
I've seen this. "I need validation." "I'm feeling insecure. Can you tell me X and give me a hug?" And then I see the response of the people (who both happen to be men) who perhaps are not on board with Radical Honesty. Who seem to feel...distrustful? Of the blatant honesty of what is being needed and feel skeptical. I have been told that there's a dislike of being told what to do, as if the specific request is emasculating, and that there's a fear of being responsible for one's emotions when that isn't what the asker feels. I've also seen the request half-heartedly met...in a mocking way. Honesty to intimidate or scare some people and that may be part of why it holds the position it does in our society. (Scared perhaps even that somebody is so in touch with their emotions much less able to ask for them, when that's not what's taught as the male stereotype, is part of my suspicion). Rather interesting to watch.
mellyjc
Mar. 3rd, 2012 11:59 pm (UTC)
How does 'lie by omission' fit into Radical Honesty?

It's interesting how the perspective seems to be brought into question again with dementia. Do white lies become more acceptable when they are with the intention of calming the patient, making them feel better, since they won't remember the answer and ask again in five minutes anyhow? Then it seems to become a matter of compassion versus integrity for some people.
skittenwench
Mar. 7th, 2012 12:51 pm (UTC)
dammit! I thought you finally had the aswer to how do I answre the query about how do I lok in these pants. darn you for being a merciless tease!

Have you ever considered putting yourt muses on particular topics into a book? I really think you should franklin.
skittenwitch
Mar. 7th, 2012 12:55 pm (UTC)
I do believe in honesty but I also think that if you can carefully choose your words to honest but not wounding it'll be less obnoxiously & unnecessarily brutal. Unfortunately, it also requires long pauses in your speech, which most people don't have the patience to endure. This is why I prefer the written word... It gives you time to think through what your saying, revise & edit, not only for typos but for clzarity & grammar. speaking off the top of my head doesn't really work well for me...
skittenwitch
Mar. 7th, 2012 12:56 pm (UTC)
I wonder if there really is a good response to the butt question anyway *lol*
whta about grabbing their ass & saying "damn you're curvalicious & I love it" ;)
khall
Mar. 9th, 2012 07:12 pm (UTC)
       suzmonster says I have to read and follow you. So I am doing so. Hi.:)

K.
tacit
Mar. 9th, 2012 07:17 pm (UTC)
Howdy, and welcome aboard!
pickledginger
Mar. 31st, 2012 01:39 pm (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes. Can we add this to the grade-school curriculum, please?
(Anonymous)
Oct. 7th, 2012 02:08 pm (UTC)
Radical Bullshit
I came across this thread and read with interest. My partner has been practising RH for just over a year. It has caused more arguments and bust-ups than I care to go into. I totally relate to the compassion, or at least my ideal of compassion. The neglect of emotions... I'm responsible for my own Im told time and time again. Conversations are blasted with 'what you are saying is just your bullshit mind'. There is this fixation on words with RH... 'you imagine you are happy' 'no you don't feel sad', 'what sensation do you have that you associate with sad'. Personally it has driven me to distraction. Radical Honesty as a concept is good, but my experience of practioners is - unlikeable people, full of their own shit to the point they put others down - i.e. 'youre a liar'. My partner or of this weekend ex partner is now off to be Brad Blanton new CEO, we have struggled to keep the relationship together, and Dr Blanton has written to me, telling me I should just get over my shit and let her go, be a man. So Radical Honesty is not my favourite subject. Its a con, attracting middle aged singles with more money than sense, young men with the allure he can teach them how to sleep with 500 women. The allure of workshops in attractive places, which would seduce anyone. Be honest people, and see RH for what it is, an old guy who has found a title to explain his bullshit behaviour and suckers people who are desperate.
(Anonymous)
Oct. 18th, 2012 06:36 pm (UTC)
Honesty with ommission
My experience of Radical Honesty, those I know spout honesty and yet withhold and and lie by ommission. In otherwords they are honest to a point, but dont get the concept 'the whole truth. Kinda makes a joke of it when you think about it.
( 34 comments — Leave a comment )
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner